Famous logger guy?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtnbikerride's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78

    Famous logger guy?

    Does anyone know the name of the logger who would limb a tree then top it and then stand/sit on the top like 100ft up. I know I have seen pictures but cant find anything online. Please dont post any anti logging, save the tree stuff. Just want to know who this guy is.
    Thanks
    Take a kid Hunting!

  2. #2
    Tree Hugger
    Reputation: Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,946
    The ONLY famous logger out there was Paul Bunyan. He would use a 100ft tree as a tooth pick, not a chair.

    But seriously, logging is a dangerous business, and most loggers don't need to make it any riskier by climbing trees.

    Oh yeah, by the way, logging can be very damaging to bike trails, and our children's future.

    Wake up, and smell the stumps.
    Zero Cut on Federal Lands
    http://www.forestcouncil.org/learn/f...t/zerocut.html


    Your signature was real funny..... in 1990.
    I love mankind - it's people I can't stand. ~Charles M. Schulz

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    The ONLY famous logger out there was Paul Bunyan. He would use a 100ft tree as a tooth pick, not a chair.

    But seriously, logging is a dangerous business, and most loggers don't need to make it any riskier by climbing trees.

    Oh yeah, by the way, logging can be very damaging to bike trails, and our children's future.

    Wake up, and smell the stumps.
    Zero Cut on Federal Lands
    http://www.forestcouncil.org/learn/f...t/zerocut.html


    Your signature was real funny..... in 1990.
    Renewable resource mean anything to you?

  4. #4

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TrikeKid
    Renewable resource mean anything to you?
    Oversimplification to the point of being a lie mean anything to you?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtnbikerride's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78
    Trees are a renewable resourse and should be managed as such. That site you gave is a joke. Here is were you should go for truth: http://www.safnet.org/index.cfm. This is exactly what I didn't want this to turn into. Just wanted to know who this guy was?
    Take a kid Hunting!

  6. #6
    President, CEO of Earth
    Reputation: TobyNobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikerride
    Trees are a renewable resourse and should be managed as such. That site you gave is a joke. Here is were you should go for truth: http://www.safnet.org/index.cfm. This is exactly what I didn't want this to turn into. Just wanted to know who this guy was?
    I've never heard of any superstar loggers other than Paul Bunyan, and maybe Jo Montferand. Is he real or just a myth?
    "Newfoundland dogs are good to save children from drowning, but you must have a pond of water handy" - Josh Billings

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtnbikerride's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78
    I did some reserch and Jo Montferand was real. Thanks for the serious reply. The guy im looking for died like seven years ago or something like that of old age, I think.
    Take a kid Hunting!

  8. #8

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikerride
    Trees are a renewable resourse and should be managed as such. That site you gave is a joke. Here is were you should go for truth: http://www.safnet.org/index.cfm. This is exactly what I didn't want this to turn into. Just wanted to know who this guy was?
    Of course! After clear-cutting a stand of 500-year old Redwoods, all ya gotta do is wait around for another half a millenium and it's like it never happened!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtnbikerride's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78
    This isn't supposed to be and argument about weather sustainable logging is RIGHT or wrong. Just want to find out who this guy is so I can do a report. what is so hard to understand about this?
    Take a kid Hunting!

  10. #10
    mikeb
    Guest
    so the idiots had to be idiots right off the bat.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  11. #11
    don't move for trees
    Reputation: BKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,832
    logging saved trails in Washington. Local residents set up an agreement with the company, the mountain stays open to them, they get to keep the trails and fix them, in addition about 3 trails are closed so it can be logged and replanted, then build new trails
    "Get a bicycle.You will not regret it if you live." Mark Twain

  12. #12
    igoslo
    Reputation: SoloRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    971

  13. #13
    Big Boned
    Reputation: Manmountain Dense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,535
    Yeah, of course logging is evil. All it does is thin forests and create roads. We're much better off with thick, overgrown, choked-off and dying forests without roads in them, so then parasites like pine bark beetles can come through and have plenty to eat without having to look very far for their next target.

    Then it's really easy for the beetles to, say, wipe out the entire lodgepole forest in Colorado, leaving hundreds of thousands of dead trees stuffed on top of each other across the state. Which is perfect, because then the next time we get dry lightning, we'll just have a nice, big forest fire. And because there are no logging roads or even forest service access roads due to Federal roadless mandates, we have no way to fight these fires except to drop water from a helicopter and pray. Huge forest fires are GREAT for mountain bike trails, by the way!

    So then, we'll wind up lots of dead, burnt trees and ash on the soil, which is terrific! Because when the next big runoff or heavy rain storm comes, all that ash and loose dirt and will come washing down the watershed, clog creeks and rivers, cause floods, foul reservoirs, and generally just be a huge disaster. All because we wouldn't allow loggers to go in and thin out the forests artificially and mitigate the fire and parasite risk.

    No, better to just let the forests "be natural." Except we don't -- we put out forest fires, and thus interrupt the natural cycle by which the forest keeps itself healthy.

    Which works great who needs loggers to clear forests when you can just suffocate them with benign neglect and let them burn?

    So you see, we don't need loggers to destroy our forests. The environmentalists are doing a much better job.
    Never rub another man's rhubarb.

  14. #14
    don't move for trees
    Reputation: BKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,832
    sadly Nevada already burns really easily,no matter what you do. Thankfully taking away the old under brush does help a lot, but the trees are sooo dry its not even funny.
    "Get a bicycle.You will not regret it if you live." Mark Twain

  15. #15
    addict
    Reputation: powderhound82's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense
    So you see, we don't need loggers to destroy our forests. The environmentalists are doing a much better job.



    Couldn't have said it better myself!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense
    Yeah, of course logging is evil. All it does is thin forests and create roads. We're much better off with thick, overgrown, choked-off and dying forests without roads in them, so then parasites like pine bark beetles can come through and have plenty to eat without having to look very far for their next target.

    Then it's really easy for the beetles to, say, wipe out the entire lodgepole forest in Colorado, leaving hundreds of thousands of dead trees stuffed on top of each other across the state. Which is perfect, because then the next time we get dry lightning, we'll just have a nice, big forest fire. And because there are no logging roads or even forest service access roads due to Federal roadless mandates, we have no way to fight these fires except to drop water from a helicopter and pray. Huge forest fires are GREAT for mountain bike trails, by the way!

    So then, we'll wind up lots of dead, burnt trees and ash on the soil, which is terrific! Because when the next big runoff or heavy rain storm comes, all that ash and loose dirt and will come washing down the watershed, clog creeks and rivers, cause floods, foul reservoirs, and generally just be a huge disaster. All because we wouldn't allow loggers to go in and thin out the forests artificially and mitigate the fire and parasite risk.

    No, better to just let the forests "be natural." Except we don't -- we put out forest fires, and thus interrupt the natural cycle by which the forest keeps itself healthy.

    Which works great who needs loggers to clear forests when you can just suffocate them with benign neglect and let them burn?

    So you see, we don't need loggers to destroy our forests. The environmentalists are doing a much better job.

    WORD!

    Logging is farming. Not clear cutting and destroying.

    BTW, I have no idea who you are talking about.
    Your fear of looking stupid is holding you back.

  17. #17
    Formerly DMR For Life
    Reputation: Full Mountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    989
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense
    Yeah, of course logging is evil. All it does is thin forests and create roads. We're much better off with thick, overgrown, choked-off and dying forests without roads in them, so then parasites like pine bark beetles can come through and have plenty to eat without having to look very far for their next target.

    Then it's really easy for the beetles to, say, wipe out the entire lodgepole forest in Colorado, leaving hundreds of thousands of dead trees stuffed on top of each other across the state. Which is perfect, because then the next time we get dry lightning, we'll just have a nice, big forest fire. And because there are no logging roads or even forest service access roads due to Federal roadless mandates, we have no way to fight these fires except to drop water from a helicopter and pray. Huge forest fires are GREAT for mountain bike trails, by the way!

    So then, we'll wind up lots of dead, burnt trees and ash on the soil, which is terrific! Because when the next big runoff or heavy rain storm comes, all that ash and loose dirt and will come washing down the watershed, clog creeks and rivers, cause floods, foul reservoirs, and generally just be a huge disaster. All because we wouldn't allow loggers to go in and thin out the forests artificially and mitigate the fire and parasite risk.

    No, better to just let the forests "be natural." Except we don't -- we put out forest fires, and thus interrupt the natural cycle by which the forest keeps itself healthy.

    Which works great who needs loggers to clear forests when you can just suffocate them with benign neglect and let them burn?

    So you see, we don't need loggers to destroy our forests. The environmentalists are doing a much better job.
    the only problem is much of logging today is still clear cutting as opposed to selective logging which does what you describe

    DMR

  18. #18
    addict
    Reputation: powderhound82's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by DMR For Life
    the only problem is much of logging today is still clear cutting as opposed to selective logging which does what you describe

    DMR

    The trend is towards appropriate, sustainable use of the resource. Since fire use is not always acceptable or practical, and nobody wants to see millions of acres of dead forests (Colorado!), clearcutting mimics natural disturbances (fire, insects) in some forest types. Selective logging is more appropriate for other cover types.

  19. #19
    MTB Rider
    Reputation: willtsmith_nwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Manmountain Dense
    Yeah, of course logging is evil. All it does is thin forests and create roads. We're much better off with thick, overgrown, choked-off and dying forests without roads in them, so then parasites like pine bark beetles can come through and have plenty to eat without having to look very far for their next target.

    Then it's really easy for the beetles to, say, wipe out the entire lodgepole forest in Colorado, leaving hundreds of thousands of dead trees stuffed on top of each other across the state. Which is perfect, because then the next time we get dry lightning, we'll just have a nice, big forest fire. And because there are no logging roads or even forest service access roads due to Federal roadless mandates, we have no way to fight these fires except to drop water from a helicopter and pray. Huge forest fires are GREAT for mountain bike trails, by the way!

    So then, we'll wind up lots of dead, burnt trees and ash on the soil, which is terrific! Because when the next big runoff or heavy rain storm comes, all that ash and loose dirt and will come washing down the watershed, clog creeks and rivers, cause floods, foul reservoirs, and generally just be a huge disaster. All because we wouldn't allow loggers to go in and thin out the forests artificially and mitigate the fire and parasite risk.

    No, better to just let the forests "be natural." Except we don't -- we put out forest fires, and thus interrupt the natural cycle by which the forest keeps itself healthy.

    Which works great who needs loggers to clear forests when you can just suffocate them with benign neglect and let them burn?

    So you see, we don't need loggers to destroy our forests. The environmentalists are doing a much better job.
    This is all true. But sometimes logging companies emulate some of these effects by clear cutting very large areas. What we need responsible tree harvesting that preserves some foliage.

  20. #20
    Jesus loved the dinosaurs
    Reputation: benlineberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    360
    Are you talking about Skookum Sam?

  21. #21
    Sir Hurt Locker
    Reputation: 2_Tires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,007
    I hope the anti tree-cutting people trying to argue here are actually involved in protecting the earth's trees. There are way to many people around that whine about how others are destroying the planet but then that's all they do is whine. Those people are worse than the people who say nothing.
    Cheers,

    Seb

    __________________________________________________
    Live Free and RIDE Hard!!!!
    Defiant MTB

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    534
    Is it one of the lumberjack competition guys you're thinking of?

    Not to enter in to the "other" discussion here, but those competitions are a blast to watch on TV (never seen one in person).

    Anyways, check this out, lots of names, records, etc. mentioned on the site:

    http://www.usaxemen.com/usaa/indexrecord.shtml

  23. #23
    There's no app for this.
    Reputation: JimC.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,369

    Jeez, Drew...

    Quote Originally Posted by Drewdane
    Of course! After clear-cutting a stand of 500-year old Redwoods, all ya gotta do is wait around for another half a millennium and it's like it never happened!

    What happened to your eye avatar? And let's face it, we'll be out of water long before the loggers stop cutting. That might serve as a bit of a wakeup call.

    Jim

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.